In transfer applications, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband, especially when the wife has no source of income and is residing with her parents.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner- wife seeking transfer of the Divorce Petition bearing No.39/2020 titled as Rajendra Prasad Sharma v. Smt. Ekta Dhadhich filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') by the respondent-husband from the Court of Additional District Judge, Kekri District Ajmer to the Family Court situated at Kota.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has submitted that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 12.05.2018 at Sarvar District Ajmer as per Hindu rites, rituals & customs. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has a daughter, namely Vaidehi from her first husband, presently she is six years old and is being taken care of by the petitioner alone and the respondent-husband is also a divorcee. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner and respondent have resided together till 12.05.2019. Thereafter, the respondent and his family abandoned the petitioner and since then she has been residing at her parental home in Kota.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has contended that the petitioner was constrained to file complaint with the Women Police Station, Kota City, which later-on culminated into an F.I.R. Counsel has further contended that the F.I.R. bearing No.211/2020 was registered on 05.09.2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 of I.P.C. against the respondent and his five other family members. Counsel has also contended that the petitioner also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate No.2 (South) Kota, zwhich was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.2400/2020 titled as "Ekta Dhadhich v. Rajendra Prasad & Others.

4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has pleaded that the petitioner also filed a complaint under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Kota titled as "Smt. Ekta Dhadhich & another v. Rajendra Prasad Sharma" and as a counter-blast to the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent has filed a Divorce Petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 against the petitioner, pending before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Kekri District Ajmer. Counsel has further pleaded that the petitioner also had to take care of her six year old daughter and her old aged parents, who are solely dependent on her. Counsel has also pleaded that the petitioner is a house-wife and not employed anywhere. She has no source of income and does not have any personal independent mode of transportation.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has argued that the daughter of the petitioner being six years old requires constant care and attention, so it is neither possible for the petitioner to leave her alone for almost 7-8 hours nor to take her alongwith her to the Court. Counsel has further argued that the parents of the petitioner are too old and no male member is available in the family, who could attend the Court hearing along with the petitioner. Counsel has also argued that Kekri Court in District Ajmer is at a distance of more than 100 Kms. and one way journey takes approximately three to five hours. Lastly, counsel prayed that the aforesaid pending divorce petition may kindly be transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge, Kekri District Ajmer to the learned Family Court at Kota.

6. In support of his case, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife, has placed reliance upon the following judgments viz.,

(i) Asma Parveen v. Javed Bhati, reported as 2018 (4) RLW 3511 (Raj.), (ii) Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Others, reported as AIR 2002 SC 396, (iii) Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, reported as (2005) 12 SCC 237 (iv) Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, reported as AIR 2016 SC 3584 and (v) P